Happy birthday.
(He's married to Romana from Dr Who too -- ultimate geek kudos
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/lolol.gif)
Someone seems to have his/her birthday today?boudicca wrote:Wait a minute, is he on here?!?Obviousman wrote: Have a good one![]()
nick the stripper wrote:Also, I wonder if Dawkins has heard of David Hume's problem of induction, or read Nietzsche's On Truth and Lies, two works which have greatly influenced my way of seeing things and really put me off positivism.
You certainly do look like that. Though I have to agree Dawkins is a narrow minded fool.nick the stripper wrote:EDIT - I should edit this properly when I have the chance, at the moment it looks like the ravings of a lunatic. But for now I'll just say I'm not overly impressed with Dawkins.
Arch Deviant wrote:You certainly do look like that.nick the stripper wrote:EDIT - I should edit this properly when I have the chance, at the moment it looks like the ravings of a lunatic.
bushman*pm wrote:sorry about this, but zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
well thats bored the (.)(.) off me!
I agree. Dawkins may be a fine scientist, but he is a lousy philosopher and has given little or no thought the limits of reason or to the limits of scientifc method. It's a method designed for describing things in terms of mechanical causality--i.e., efficient and material causality, nothing more. Where Dawkins goes wrong is in his applications of knowledge of efficient and material causality to claims about formal and final causality; to put it another way, he presupposes (a rather crude) positivism and builds his arguments from there, rather than proving that positivism is the case. At the end of the day, he's a very fine scientist but he fundamentally lacks the necessary skills and knowledge of philosophy to try and make the arguments he's making--thus, all he can do is preach to the converted; and his shockingly rude rhetorical scorched-earth strategy will win him few, if any, converts. At the end of the day, I have yet to see any reason to take him seriously as a philosophical thinker.boudicca wrote:Arch Deviant wrote:You certainly do look like that.nick the stripper wrote:EDIT - I should edit this properly when I have the chance, at the moment it looks like the ravings of a lunatic.![]()
I think he has a good point, personally
I alway believe a wee bit, it's playing the odds, if you believe in a God and you die, well, you're Quids inSINsister wrote:
In spite of this, my take on it all is: you won't *really* know until you're dead, and maybe not even then. Meh.![]()
![]()
scotty wrote:I alway believe a wee bit, it's playing the odds, if you believe in a God and you die, well, you're Quids inSINsister wrote:
In spite of this, my take on it all is: you won't *really* know until you're dead, and maybe not even then. Meh.![]()
![]()
, if you don't believe and you die and there is a God..................you're fucked, if there's not a God.........doesn't really matter either way.
SINsister wrote:
Yeah, but I wanna know ALL of it, and I wanna know all of it right NOW.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
scotty wrote:SINsister wrote: Yeah, but I wanna know ALL of it, and I wanna know all of it right NOW.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
bloody Women, and if you found out you'd only say it was wrong, that it was all Men's fault and you'd just go and change everything
![]()
nick the stripper wrote:Also, I wonder if Dawkins has heard of David Hume's problem of induction